2013 (1) TMI 346 - SC - Indian Laws

Dismissal of charged officer(functioning as the Deputy Manager of the Bank ) from service - High Court set aside an order passed by the State Bank of India of dismissal in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Held that - High Court has committed an error in holding that the charge-sheet should have mentioned about the details of the documents and the names of the witnesses which the Bank proposed to examine and a list to that effect should have been appended to the charge sheet as the charge-sheet need not contain the details of the documents or the names of the witnesses proposed to be examined to prove the charges or a list to that effect unless there is a specific provision to that effect. Charge-sheet is not expected to be a record of evidence. Fair procedure does not mean giving of copies of the documents or list of witnesses along with the charge-sheet. Of course, statement of allegations has to accompany the charge-sheet, when required by the Service Rules. The presenting officer had informed the inquiring authority that the list of bank s documents was forwarded to the charged officer vide his letter dated 21.05.1997 ,27.06.1997 but the both was not responded to by the charged officer. Inspection of bank s documents on 13.06.1997, 14.06.1997, 09.07.1997 and 10.07.1997 respectively were undertaken as instructed by Inquiring Authority & Presenting officer was also present for facilitating the inspection but the charged officer did not turn up for inspection of the bank s documents. As 12.07.1997 was the last opportunity given to the charged officer & one more opportunity was given by the Inquiring Authority to the charged officer to submit the list of defence documents and witnesses by 19.07.1997 but the charged officer did not give any list of defence documents and witnesses and did not appear before the Inquiring Authority. On 06.11.1997, the charged officer walked out of the inquiry under such circumstances, the Inquiring Authority had no other alternative but to hold the inquiry ex parte. The Inquiring Authority and the presenting officer had followed procedures laid down under Rules 68(2)(v), 68(2)(ix)(a), 68(2)(viii) and 68(2)(xix) of the Service Rules. High Court also committed an error in holding that since no witness was examined in support of charges, it was a case of no evidence. In an ex parte inquiry, if the charges are borne out from documents kept in the normal course of business, no oral evidence is necessary to prove those charges. When the charged officer does not attend the inquiry, then he cannot contend that the Inquiring Authority should not have relied upon the documents which were not made available or disclosed to him. The Inquiring Authority has examined each and every charge levelled against the charged officer and the documents produced by the presenting officer and came to the conclusion that most of the charges were proved.The documents produced by the bank, which were not controverted by the charged officer, supports all the allegations and charges levelled against the charged officer. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not justified in interfering with the order of dismissal passed by the appointing authority after a full-fledged inquiry, especially when the Service Rules provide for an alternative remedy of appeal. As Appellant - Bank in this case has succeeded in establishing the charges levelled against the delinquent officer and was rightly dismissed from service which called for no interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's judgment setting aside the dismissal order of the charged officer.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements in the departmental inquiry.
3. Justification of the High Court's interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Examination of evidence and adherence to principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Judgment:
The Supreme Court examined the High Court's decision to set aside the dismissal order of the charged officer, which was based on the alleged non-compliance with procedural requirements by the presenting officer and the Inquiring Authority. The High Court had quashed the dismissal order, citing that the list of documents and witnesses was not provided to the charged officer, and no witnesses were examined to support the charges.

2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the procedural aspects of the departmental inquiry. The charged officer was served a charge-sheet with 12 charges and was given opportunities to inspect documents and nominate a defense representative, which he did not avail. The Inquiring Authority conducted the inquiry ex parte due to the officer's non-cooperation. The Court emphasized that the charge-sheet need not contain the details of documents or witnesses unless specifically required by the Service Rules. The presenting officer had attempted multiple times to provide the list of documents to the charged officer, who refused to accept them.

3. Justification of the High Court's Interference:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the dismissal order under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when the charged officer had an alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 69 of the Service Rules. The High Court's role is not to act as an appellate authority but to correct errors of law or procedural errors resulting in a miscarriage of justice or violation of natural justice principles.

4. Examination of Evidence and Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:
The Supreme Court noted that in a departmental inquiry, the standard of proof is the preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt. The Inquiring Authority had considered the documentary evidence produced by the presenting officer, which the charged officer did not contest. The Court cited precedents indicating that a charged officer who refuses to participate in the inquiry cannot later claim a denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Supreme Court concluded that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Service Rules, and the charges were sufficiently established through uncontroverted documentary evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and upheld the dismissal of the charged officer. The Court emphasized that the procedural requirements were met, and the High Court's interference was unwarranted. The charged officer's non-cooperation and refusal to inspect documents or nominate a defense representative justified the ex parte inquiry and the subsequent dismissal.

← Previous Next →